WEDNESDAY,  MAY 6,  2009

WONDERFUL, WONDERFUL - AT 6:55 P.M. ET:  Last week, at his news conference, President Obama once more displayed his grasp of history by quoting Winston Churchill on the subject of torture.  And once more the president was wrong, as noted by distinguished author Arthur Herman, a recognized expert on British history:

Churchill recognized that torture -- the cruel, needless infliction of pain as a means of domination and control of others -- was emblematic of man's barbarism, as opposed to the values of what he called "Christian civilization." It was precisely this barbarism that he saw in the Nazi death camps and the Soviet gulag -- and that we see among the Muslim fanatics who will stone women to death for refusing to wear the veil or behead reporters.

But Churchill also understood that, if barbarism was one enemy of civilization, another was a moral cowardice disguised as moral qualms -- an instinctive flinching in the face of danger, dressed up as "upholding our values."

Churchill had seen this flinching in such 1930s appeasers as Neville Chamberlain, and he feared that he'd see it again among Britons and their leaders after the war.

There is no place for compromise in war," Churchill wrote. In choosing between civilized restraint and the British people's survival, he never hesitated.

COMMENT:  In the first weeks of his presidency, Obama haughtily sent back to the British a bust of Winston Churchill that had been in display in the Oval Office.  It was correctly seen as a slap in the British face.  Now, when convenient, he quotes Churchill.

As Arthur Herman points out, Obama has said that GI's liberated Auschwitz.  It was Russian troops.  He said that Austrians speak Austrian.  No such language.  They speak German.  Now he messes up on Churchill.

Of course, he hasn't released his college transcripts, so we don't know what grades he got in history, if he ever took history.  Books are available.

May 6, 2009   Permalink

WELL, ISN'T THAT GRAND OF HIM - AT 6:25 P.M. ET:  This is political hypocrisy at its worst, from the Washington Post:

President Obama will seek to extend the controversial D.C. school voucher program until all 1,716 participants have graduated from high school, although no new students will be accepted, according to an administration official who has reviewed budget details scheduled for release tomorrow.

The budget documents, which expand on the fiscal 2010 blueprint that Congress approved last month by outlining Obama's priorities in detail, would provide $12.2 million for the Opportunity Scholarship Program for the 2009-2010 school year. The new language also would revise current law that makes further funding for existing students contingent on Congress's reauthorization of the program beyond its current June 2010 expiration date. Under the Obama proposal, further congressional action would not be necessary, and current students would automatically receive grants until they finish school.

COMMENT:  This is sickening.  First, note the description of the program as "controversial."  Yeah, right.  It's certainly not controversial among the parents and students.  It's only controversial when you crank in the teachers' unions, which oppose this successful project because it may reduce their clout.

It's been reported that friends of the president's two daughters are in the program.

Mr. Obama could have fought for these vouchers earlier, but chose to duck, apparently not wanting to confront unions that were key to his election.  Now he's apparently extending himself by allowing kids already in the program to continue until graduation, rather than go back to rotten schools.  Gee, that's nice of him.  But, of course, after these kids graduate, the program will be dropped.  Too successful.  Too embarrassing to the educational establishment.

And we wonder why education is in the state it's in.  And what is the Democratic Party's answer to the crisis?  More money. 

For what?

May 6, 2009    Permalink

BOSTON GLOBE IS TEMPORARILY SAVED - AT 10:12 A.M. ET:  From the financially stable Washington Times:

BOSTON (AP) -- The Boston Globe and its largest employees union reached a tentative agreement early Wednesday morning on concessions that will keep the 137-year-old newspaper publishing, the union president said.

The breakthrough came at about 4 a.m., said Dan Totten, president of the Newspaper Guild. He did not release details pending a meeting with Guild members scheduled for Thursday.

COMMENT:  The Globe is a venerable newspaper, but in recent years has veered sharply to the left, and often seems out of touch with reality.  Unless this is corrected, the concessions made by unions may turn out to be meaningless in the long run.  The Globe is owned by The New York Times, which has similar problems.

May 6, 2009   Permalink

A FUNNY THING HAPPENED TO ARLEN SPECTER - AT 8:25 A.M.  Maybe he didn't read the fine print.  From The Politico:

Sen. Arlen Specter lost big under a resolution approved by the Senate Tuesday night: He won't be able to retain his seniority on five committees this Congress.

In announcing his switch to the Democratic Party last week, Specter said that Democratic leaders assured him that he would be treated as if he were elected as a Democrat 29 years ago — essentially allowing him to leapfrog most Democrats and put himself in line to become a committee chairman if he wins reelection in 2010. Several Democrats have taken exception to the notion that Specter would be taking possession of their prized real estate.

COMMENT:  How will Arlen explain this to the voters of Pennsylvania, who had, until last week, one of the most senior senators, and now have someone in Senate kindergarten?

May 6, 2009   Permalink

WAKE UP L'IL BARACK, WAKE UP - AT 8:04 A.M. ET:  Amir Taheri, speaking to a group of us last night for Hudson New York, made the point that no negotiation with the mullah regime has ever succeeded.  Apparently, this little bit is well known in the Mideast, but not known at all in Washington:

CAIRO (AP) -- Washington's efforts to start a dialogue with Iran have sent ripples of alarm through the capitals of America's closest Arab allies, who accuse Tehran of playing a destabilizing role in the Middle East.

The concerns being raised by Arab leaders sound strikingly like those coming from the mouths of Israeli officials.

''We hope that any dialogue between countries will not come at our expense,'' said a statement Tuesday by the six oil-rich nations of the Gulf Cooperation Council, who have long relied on U.S. protection in the region.

The Obama administration has been reaching out to Iran in a marked shift after the U.S. shunned contacts for decades. But U.S. allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, as well as Israel, say Tehran is not a positive force in the region with its support for Islamic militant groups such as Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.

COMMENT:  As we've reported here, Secretary of Defense Gates is in the region to reassure our allies that we're not handing over the keys to Iran.  This is one of those remarkable situations where the Israelis and many Arab governments are on the same page. 

There is a religious belief in negotiations among the Obamans.  That belief must be tempered by maturity and realism.  Haven't seen it yet.

May 6, 2009   Permalink

THOSE INCONVENIENT LITTLE FACTS - AT 7:50 A.M.   I've always admired Howard Baker, who served as a Republican senator from Tennessee, and then, briefly, as President Reagan's chief of staff.  Today, in the Washington Post, he looks back and reminds us that the death of the Republican Party has been predicted periodically, and each prediction has failed.  So cheer up:

In 1964, when I first ran for the U.S. Senate, I was crushed beneath the Lyndon Johnson landslide that not only vanquished Barry Goldwater but also swept in a huge Democratic congressional majority -- far exceeding the numbers the Democrats enjoy today.

But Johnson overreached, tried to install too much government on the American people.

This political overreach was evident as early as 1966, and it created a rising tide for every Republican running that year, including a new governor of California named Reagan, a new congressman from Texas named Bush and myself -- that year, I became the first Republican ever popularly elected to the Senate from Tennessee.

In other words, after being declared dead in 1964, the Republican Party was vigorously resuscitated in 1966...

And...

This is a cautionary tale for anyone who believes that Barack Obama's election, or Sen. Arlen Specter's defection, or anything else we may see in the coming weeks and months augurs a permanent shift in American politics.

Finally...

The core Republican beliefs in less government, lower taxes, more liberty and greater security in a dangerous world united people as different as Mark Hatfield and Jesse Helms during my years as leader of the Senate. Those same beliefs carried Ronald Reagan into the White House in 1980 and 1984. Those beliefs still have power today. And if the American people perceive overreaching or underachieving in the Obama administration and among its allies in Congress, the Republican way may prove very attractive again in very short order.

It's happened before.

COMMENT:  The press leans to the left (shock), and it delights in writing obituaries for the GOP.  So does the academic world.  Yes, the party has to work hard to rebuild, but it has a good chance to gain seats in Congress next year, if the Rasmussen surveys are correct.  President Obama, even if he remains popular, may not have much electoral clout if the Dem Congress is perceived as messing things up, as it has a tendency to do.

May 6, 2009   Permalink

HIRING BOOM IN U.S.  READ ALL ABOUT IT!! - AT 7:29 A.M. ET:  This is a classic example of a non-news news story.  From The New York Times, natch:

Everyone knows the grim news — unemployment in the United States has jumped to 8.5 percent, a 25-year high, and is racing toward double digits. Since November, the nation has lost more than three million jobs.

But not everyone knows the brighter side to the equation: deep in the maw of the deepest recession since the Great Depression, millions are still being hired.

So, while 4.8 million workers were laid off or chose to leave their jobs in February, employers across the country hired 4.3 million workers that month, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

COMMENT:  Uh, yeah.  And the Titanic sank because more water was flooding in than was being bailed out.

This story is meaningless.  There is always hiring going on.  People got jobs in the great Depression.  Want ads appeared in newspapers.  There have been many stories, just in recent weeks, about industries that are hiring, like health care.  It doesn't change the overall dynamic - a net loss of jobs.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke said yesterday that he expects unemployment to peak in 2010. 

May 6, 2009   Permalink 

TUESDAY,  MAY 5,  2009

TAHERI - AT 11:35 P.M. ET: Just returned from a Hudson New York briefing by Amir Taheri, a superb writer on the Middle East, often quoted at Urgent Agenda.  He reviewed the reasons why he thinks the Obama administration is delusional on Iran, especially noting the fact that no negotiation with the mullah regime has ever succeeded.

But it was another point that Taheri made that is especially telling.  He said that the worst anti-Americanism he's seen originates not in the Middle East, but in the United States.  We export our anti-Americanism, written by such worthies as Noam Chomsky.  The product put out by American anti-Americans reinforces the hatred of America in other countries by giving it a false aura of authenticity. 

This was troubling to hear, but rings true.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

THE BAD JOKE CONTINUES - AT 4:45 P.M. ET:  The Iranians are playing us like the proverbial violin:

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- An Iranian court will hear the appeal of an American journalist convicted of spying for the United States next week and will open the proceedings to experts from the country's bar association, the judiciary spokesman said Tuesday.

The advance notice was the latest sign that Iran may be trying to lower tensions with the U.S. over the case, after Washington called the charges against 32-year-old Roxana Saberi ''baseless.''

COMMENT:  It is one of the oldest diplomatic games.  First, do something thoroughly outragious.  Then, in an act of "humanitarianism," ease the outrage.  Then watch as the grovelers, professional appeasers and assorted leftists, praise you for your "enlightened" actions. 

This woman will probably be released.  The Obama team will call it a great victory for "engagement."  Iran will suddenly look reasonable.

And it will be a farce.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

OH, NO, NO, NO - AT 3:01 P.M. ET: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has spoken on the subject of President Obama's Supreme Court pick:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says he hopes President Barack Obama will make an unconventional choice for a Supreme Court justice to succeed Justice David Souter.

Why? 

He said he hopes Obama goes outside the existing legal system and finds a former governor or senator, or someone who has ''real life experiences.''

You mean judges don't have "real life experiences"?  Did they go to school?  Do they know from supermarkets?  Get married?  Have kids?  Drive cars?  What kind of experiences is Harry talking about?

And get this one:

Reid said that ''I feel comfortable that his choice will be as good as his Cabinet choices.''

In other words, a justice with tax problems.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

AMERICANS WANT LESS GUN CONTROL - AT 2:53 P.M. ET:  From the Houston Chronicle:

Amid a wave of publicity about school shootings and drug-related gun violence along the Mexican border, more Americans than ever oppose government efforts to regulate guns, Gallup's top pollster said today.

Frank Newport, the editor-in-chief of the Gallup Poll, told a breakfast meeting of reporters hosted by the Christian Science Monitor that "every bit of data is showing us that Americans are getting more conservative about gun control."

Newport cited polling conducted by Gallup, the Pew Research Center and CNN to back up his contention that "attitudes toward gun control have become more conservative -- not wanting more gun control."

The veteran pollster said the growing opposition to gun control is "counterintuitive" because of the heavy media focus on the use of assault weapons to kill police officers and school students, as well as the coverage of drug-cartel lawlessness in Mexico.

COMMENT:  This is fascinating, and consistent with reports of dramatically increased sales of guns and ammunition.  I suspect Americans fear some move against the Second Amendment by the administration, or fear an outbreak of crime that a liberal government may do little to curtail.

I'd love to see the Gallup survey broken down by region and age. 

May 5, 2009   Permalink

NATIONAL SECURITY RISES IN U.S. WORRIES - AT 9:10 A.M. ET:  Rasmussen reports a sharp rise in Americans' concern about national security:

The economy remains the top issue for most Americans, but national security and the War on Terror are considered very important by 70% of voters nationwide, the highest level found since September 2007.

That’s up from 64% in April and 60% in February, according to the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

Another 24% say national security is somewhat important. Only five percent (5%) say the issue is not very or not at all important.

And in another Rasmussen poll, Americans show their concern over Pakistan:

Eighty-seven percent (87%) of U.S. voters are now at least somewhat concerned about the security of nuclear weapons in Pakistan as the radical Islamic Taliban continues to make gains in that country. Sixty percent (60%) are Very Concerned.

Just 10% are not concerned about Pakistan’s nuclear weapons in the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey.

The level of overall concern is unchanged from last August, following Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf’s resignation from office, but the number of those Very Concerned has jumped 15 points.

COMMENT:  This can't be good news for the Obama administration, widely perceived as weak on national security.  This an area of great vulnerability for Obama.  Although his hardened base may not be moved much by security concerns, the great American middle is moved.  Even one serious setback can have its impact, especially if it occurs as we're entering next year's election season. 

May 5, 2009   Permalink

QUOTED - AT 8:22 A.M. ET:  We don't do much self-hype here, except during subscription drives, but I think readers will be pleased to learn that I'm quoted (twice) in Larry Sabato's new book, "The Year of Obama," which is an excellent report on how Barack Obama won the White House.  The quotes come from a piece I did at Power Line called "Tina Fey, Kingmaker."  The piece is here.  The quotes, which deal with the impact of show business on the 2008 campaign, are as follows:

The most decisive moment in Hollywood's attempt to influence the election was Oprah Winfrey's introduction of Barack Obama on her daytime television show.  This simply had never happened before...But Oprah not only introduced Obama, she vouched for him, she gave him what Joan Crawford once called "the big okay," her seal of approval.  Almost instantly, Winfrey transformed Obama from an ambitious young politician into a cultural star.  He suddenly rocketed beyond politics.  He bacame larger than all that.  And there he remained, all through the campaign, and up to election day, a man who was as much culture as candidate.

And...

Tina Fey never "did" Sarah Palin.  She took certain traits of Palin's, even traits Palin was simply assumed to have, then exaggerated them.  Because Palin wasn't that well known, Fey had close to a blank slate, a rare advantage in the world of impressionists.  And because her impression was entertaining and funny, it drew us in.  But the impression ridiculed Palin, and went far to define her in the public mind as someone not quite up to the job, a political airhead.  It wasn't the only factor, of course, but it played an important role in sending Palin from her starring role at the Republican convention, crashing down to her later image as someone grasping for respect.

Delighted to be quoted in a Larry Sabato book.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

THERE'S NO RETURN DESK - AT 7:41 A.M. ET:  The Specter switch is running up against the Rule of Unintended Consequences.  From The Politico:

Nearly a week after Democrats welcomed Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter into the fold and Republicans got acquainted with Specter’s prospective challenger, Pat Toomey, both sides are showing signs of buyer’s remorse.

Suddenly Specter’s path to reelection as a Democrat is looking far from certain, as progressives recoil at some aspects of Specter’s voting record and two prominent candidates refuse to bow out. On the GOP side, the more Republicans look at the Pennsylvania political landscape, the more questions they have about whether Toomey is the right fit against Specter in a general election.

Specter’s initial warm welcome from his new party has given way to a more tepid greeting, as liberal groups chafe at Specter’s continued opposition to key elements of the party agenda — like the $3.4 trillion budget, which he voted against last week, and the Employee Free Choice Act.

COMMENT:  If the GOP plays its cards right, it might pull off a pickup in next year's Pennsylvania Senate race.  Nobody likes a turncoat, and Specter's switch of parties was entirely self-serving.  Specter has the unique ability to get both the Republicans and Democrats furious with him at the same time.  Some people never know when to get off the stage.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

NO FREE LUNCH FOR THE FREE PRESS - AT 7:29 A.M. ET:  Apparently, bailing out newspapers isn't yet on the Obama agenda.  From The Politico:

Asked in his Monday briefing if the White House would consider bailing out the newspaper business, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters the government may not have the power to reverse the industry’s decline.

“I don’t know what, in all honesty, government can do about it,” Gibbs said in response to a question about the Boston Globe’s financial struggles.

Noting that it's a "bit of a tricky area to get into," given the relationship between the White House and the media, Gibbs said President Barack Obama “believes there has to be a strong free press" and expressed "concern and sadness" over the state of the industry.

COMMENT:  Of course he's expressing concern and sadness.  It's the industry that put him in the White House.

But breathe easier, at least for now.  We won't soon have the Daily Obaman, Michelle Obama, editor, on our doorstep, paid for by our tax dollars.  A small step forward.

May 5, 2009   Permalink

SOME EATING OF CROW - AT 7:19 A.M. ET:  As reported here yesterday, Defense Secretary Bob Gates is on a magical mystery tour of the Mideast, assuring our scared-to-death allies that America isn't going soft on Iran, even though it is.  Many of the Arab countries have deep fears about Iran, and our recent groveling hasn't helped matters.  Thus Gates's reassurance tour:

CAIRO, Egypt (AP) -- Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Tuesday there is ''no grand bargain'' with Iran as the United States tries to bolster relations with the Tehran government.

Asked by reporters what kind of progress the U.S. is hoping for with Iran, Gates said he didn't know what was possible.

The U.S. is still waiting to see how the Iranians respond to President Barack Obama's outreach, Gates said, but so far the rhetoric from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been ''not very encouraging.''

''We're not willing to pull the hand back yet because we think there's still some opportunity,'' the Pentagon chief said. ''But I think concerns out there of some kind of a grand bargain developed in secret are completely unrealistic.''

COMMENT:  The Mideasterners have plenty to worry about.  Judging by Obama's performance so far, Iran can spray tear gas in his eyes and he'll call it a positive gesture, since tear gas isn't lethal. 

May 5, 2009   Permalink

WELL, ISN'T THIS RICH - AT 7:09 A.M. ET:  Apparently, even Democrats in Congress are starting to realize that presidential rhetoric isn't enough to solve the problems of the nation.  Fascinating, from The Wall Street Journal:

WASHINGTON -- Top House Democrats raised tensions with the White House on a key foreign policy goal, rebuffing a request for funding to begin closing the U.S. prison camp in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

President Barack Obama has sought $80 million to begin the process of closing the controversial detention facility, as part of broader legislation needed to continue funding for the U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unveiling the House version of war spending bill, House Appropriations Chairman David Obey (D., Wisc.) didn't include the funds, complaining that the administration has not yet developed a clear plan to wind down operations at Guantanamo and relocate the detainees, either abroad or in the U.S.

"When they have a plan, they're welcome to come back and talk to us," Mr. Obey said.

COMMENT:  The party-line left in Congress, led by the California delegation, will of course follow Obama anywhere.  But maybe some Dems are waking up the reality that this administration is awfully short on specifics.  And watch what happens when the Obaman Miracle Workers try to run car companies. 

As 2010 approaches, watch for more resistance from some of the congressional Dems elected to Congress in 2008 from moderate districts.  Their survival instinct will take over, and Obama is likely to be less popular as the midterm elections approach.

May 5, 2009   Permalink